American calculations failed

Hamshahri analyzed why US strategic calculations failed in the Ramadan War. According to the article, more than two months after the conflict began, international analysts believe Washington has not achieved its initial goals.

Iran’s language of force in the Strait of Hormuz pays off 

Kayhan published an analysis examining what it described as the 48‑hour failure of Trump’s ‘Freedom Project’ in the Strait of Hormuz. According to the article, the failure of this operation proved that Iran’s naval power cannot be shaken by propaganda. A blockade that began with pride was shattered by missiles, leaving ‘the language of force’ as the only valid response to Trump.

Deterrence through punishing the aggressor

Hamshahri, in an article about Iran’s power in the Strait of Hormuz, quoted Hossein Ajorlou, a regional affairs expert as saying: After the 40‑day war between Iran and the Zionist regime and the United States, the Strait of Hormuz became an advantage in Iran’s hands, and the Islamic Republic is trying to pursue the concept of ‘deterrence through punishing the aggressor’ using this strait.

Jam-e-Jam: The mirage of easy victory

Jam-e-Jam analyzed Israel's illusion of the rapid destruction of Iran. When Israel began its crimes after the Al-Aqsa storm, Netanyahu spoke of creating a new order in the Middle East. It is clear that Israel's security will only be fully ensured when there is no powerful country left in the region that can resist the excesses of this regime.

Two scenarios lie ahead for Trump

Etemad, in an interview with Gholamreza Karimi, associate professor of international relations, examined the scenarios ahead for Trump. According to Gholamreza Karimi, the root of the current crisis lies in the fundamental contradiction between Iran’s insistence on preserving its nuclear rights and the United States’ insistence on completely eliminating those rights — a contradiction that has turned into an unsolved puzzle for Washington.

The Strait of Hormuz as a key pillar of Iran’s deterrence

Kayhan, in an analysis, discussed the importance of the Strait of Hormuz for Iran and wrote: Iran proved in the Ramadan War that it is not easy to engage with the Islamic Republic, but it did not reach the point where the enemy would avoid fighting it altogether. During the war, Trump was surprised that Iran stood firm

Economic warfare: The fourth level of conflict

Javan examined the aspects of the Ramadan War in an article. The newspaper wrote: The Ramadan War had four levels or four types: moral security, military, and economic dimensions.

US positions remain an obstacle to agreement

Sobh-e-No expresses its view on the lack of positive progress and the halt in negotiations in Islamabad: A brief look at the trajectory of Trump’s war‑related and negotiation‑related scenarios shows that his current approach to shaping news about the talks is shifting away from the core issues and toward secondary, less constructive distractions.

A staged terror show in Washington

Kayhan, in an article, addressed Trump’s attempted assassination at a correspondents’ Dinner. Trump, who is under intense pressure these days due to his costly and failed war against Iran, staged another terror show against himself on Sunday evening so that he could perhaps turn the situation in his favor with the help of a bullet.

War with Iran drives a wedge between Trump and Catholics 

Shargh published an article discussing Pope Leo XIV’s stance against the US war with Iran. Pope Leo XIV has taken a firm position opposing the war. He almost continuously condemns the war against Iran and tries to highlight its moral and humanitarian ugliness for the public.

How Trump shifted his approach after battlefield setbacks

The Iran newspaper analyzed what it described as a shift in Trump’s strategy. The paper writes: It appears that nearly two months after the start of the war, and with battlefield limitations becoming clear, Trump’s effort to redefine the war’s objectives and shift its weight from the battlefield to the realm of narrative and perception has become the central axis of US policy. Within this framework, the various claims about progress in negotiations or Iran’s willingness to reach an agreement reflect less the realities on the ground and more an information operation aimed at preserving a controlled image of the war’s trajectory.

The answer to the US naval blockade lies in closing the Bab al-Mandab Strait

Kayhan discussed the Bab al-Mandab Strait and the importance of closing it in an article. The paper wrote: The unveiling of the Bab al-Mandab Strait at the end of the two-week deadline opens a new front against Trump and his supporters, who will know that from now on there will be no safe spot for them in the vital arteries of the region.

TEHRAN PAPERS:

Two sides of the national interest coin

The Iran newspaper, in an analysis, discussed the country’s current approach, and quoted former representative Mansour Haghighatpour as saying: The battlefield and the negotiating table are two sides of the same coin. On one side lies power and steadfastness in the arena of conflict; on the other, diplomacy and dialogue.

Dignified defense and courageous negotiations

Arman‑e-Emrooz, in an editorial, examined Iran’s assertive approach both on the battlefield and at the negotiating table. In recent days, the simultaneous use of the two concepts ‘dignified defense’ and ‘courageous negotiations’ has drawn attention in the country’s political discourse.

TEHRAN PAPERS:

A naval blockade would be extremely costly for the United States

Shargh, in an editorial, examined the prospect of the US naval blockade against Iran. Announcing a ‘naval blockade’ is, in fact, a clear sign of retreat. Suppose the United States decides to target every ship in the Indian Ocean and the Sea of Oman that is heading to or departing from Iran, and Iran offers no response, allowing the mission to succeed.

Agreement or confrontation on the table

Shargh has examined the new round of nuclear negotiations, arguing that Europe is once again set to become the intersection of diplomacy and hard power. These discussions are unfolding at a moment when the atmosphere is more infused than ever with military threats, amassing of U.S. military forces in the region, and increasingly sharp rhetoric from the White House.

TEHRAN PAPERS:

Why is the space ready for a new agreement?

TEHRAN- In a reference to recent developments, reformist political activist Ali Bagheri told Etemad: The public atmosphere in the country and also international reactions show that the prevailing perception of a war atmosphere has given way to hope for diplomacy. A series of unofficial news reports from inside and outside the country indicate that the horizon of negotiations has become brighter than in comparison to the past, and this issue has noticeably changed the psychological atmosphere prevailing in the country and the region.

US officials' disagreement over military attack on Iran

TEHRAN- Shargh wrote: U.S. media are reporting serious disagreements within the Trump administration regarding a military attack on Iran; a disagreement between hardline groups that emphasize the implementation of the red line and a group centered on J.D. Vance and Steve Witkoff, who believe that the costs of the war will not bring any tangible gains for the United States. However, some American officials admit that without further strengthening U.S. combat capabilities, it will be difficult to manage Iran’s possible response.

The extensive US military buildup around Iran

TEHRAN- Hamshahri discussed the extensive U.S. military buildup around Iran. According to the newspaper, relations between Iran and the U.S. are at one of their most sensitive and tense points in recent years. The extensive U.S. military deployment around Iran, from aircraft carriers and fighter jets to defense systems, is arranged in a way that makes this threat appear completely real and operational from a military perspective.

TEHRAN PAPERS:

Seeking a third way in Iran-IAEA relations

Arman-e-Melli examined the current situation between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in an analysis by former diplomat Hassan Beheshtipour. According to Beheshtipour, in such circumstances where there is a difference of opinion between Iran and the Agency, we must think of a new way. We must set up a new framework for cooperation between Iran and the Agency.

Battle over social cohesion and national decision-making capacity

Khorasan, in an analysis of the enemy’s approach toward Iran, wrote: In the literature of Iran’s foreign policy, an old warning has always been repeated: “The West wants to turn Iran into Syria.” Critics and opposition groups put forward the narrative that if the United States attacks the Islamic Republic, the country will turn into a developed Japan. Today, field evidence and the implicit admissions of Western officials have seriously challenged this duality.

A message from Witkoff and a sudden turn

Shargh analyzed a potential U.S. attack on Iran given military threats against the Islamic Republic. According to the note, Trump has placed an attack on Iran on his agenda, claiming to have told the Iranian people that "help is coming."

TEHRAN PAPERS

Recognizing pieces of the puzzle

TEHRAN- Siasat-e-Rooz analyzed ongoing protests in Iran, arguing that they are being orchestrated by hostile forces. It wrote: The recent developments in Iran and the world highlight a crucial principle—insight into the puzzle designed by the enemy.

Mossad’s objectives in fueling economic protests

TEHRAN- Farhikhtegan examined Mossad’s objectives in fueling livelihood‑related protests. Recent regional developments—particularly Netanyahu’s trip to the United States and his meeting with Trump—indicate that the Zionist regime pursues several major goals through involvement in Iran’s domestic protests.